6 ms·

I don't understand this perspective. One can be a very effective guardian of quality without being an asshole about it. For example, this is what Linus wrote:

I don't understand this perspective. One can be a very effective guardian of quality without being an asshole about it. For example, this is what Linus wrote: "Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it was a good idea to read things ONE FCKING BYTE AT A TIME with system calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the fck does idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on? Linus" Instead, he might have been able to write something like this: "It is a very bad idea to read one byte at a time with a system call, for a variety of reasons, including and especially performance." I would love to hear how being an abusive asshole actually does any good? I see it as a way to artificially limit the size and diversity of the potential contributor pool.

vidarh 12y ago
Had this been Kay's first mistake of this magnitude, it would indeed have been reasonable to expect Linus to have been more civilised. Anyone who has followed this more closely would know that this was nowhere near the first time Linus had issues with his code. Yet he did not appear to be interested in listening no matter what Linus told him.
- Diederich 12y ago
  I am aware of the fact that this wasn't his first 'offense'. Nonetheless, my question still stands: how is a verbally abusive diatribe in any way better than a shorter, more reasoned, and perhaps final response?
  - Kalium 12y ago
    It makes the reader aware of the writer's true position on the matter, adding emphasis and clarity to the situation. It strengthens the impact. It could have been "This code is bad. I will not accept this code.". Except that would not have communicated the same message. It's not always desirable to strip away emotional content.
    - Diederich 12y ago
      I agree with that. "It upsets and angers me that you're continuing to make the same mistakes over and over again." vs. 'abortion', etc. Both examples communicate emotional content. Only one of them is verbal abuse.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        The old writers' saw runs "Show, don't tell". It speaks to effective communication. It applies here. Consider which is more effective in person - the phrase "I am angry" uttered in a calm tone of voice or profanity and insults in an angry tone of voice. One of those states anger. The other communicates anger.
        Diederich 12y ago
        Kalium, you bring up the strongest point in favor of defending and using verbally abusive language. I've been through military basic training, and such language is routinely used because it is quite effective at communicating error by breaking down mental resistance and barriers to correction. In that case, the potential for emotional harm is outweighed by the net reduction in the probability for physical harm on the battlefield if such lessons aren't learned absolutely. Make no mistake: the kind of language Linus (and so many others in our community) uses can and does cause emotional harm, primarily to people who might be called 'thin skinned'. This is discriminatory against some personality types. In the balance between using verbally abusive language to more effectively communicate error and not doing that, I believe there's no question: verbal abuse is wrong, and should be avoided, and not defended. There are other ways to accomplish the same thing, without all of the toxic side effects.
        Kalium 12y ago
        I agree, there are other methods to accomplish the same thing without the toxic side effects. That is not in question. The question is if those methods produce superior outcomes, as a lack of the side effects in question does not by itself represent a superior outcome. Remember, the goal of an open source project is useful code. A friendly and emotionally supportive community is only desirable if it aids in achieving that goal.

vidarh 12y ago

Had this been Kay's first mistake of this magnitude, it would indeed have been reasonable to expect Linus to have been more civilised. Anyone who has followed this more closely would know that this was nowhere near the first time Linus had issues with his code. Yet he did not appear to be interested in listening no matter what Linus told him.

Diederich 12y ago
I am aware of the fact that this wasn't his first 'offense'. Nonetheless, my question still stands: how is a verbally abusive diatribe in any way better than a shorter, more reasoned, and perhaps final response?
- Kalium 12y ago
  It makes the reader aware of the writer's true position on the matter, adding emphasis and clarity to the situation. It strengthens the impact. It could have been "This code is bad. I will not accept this code.". Except that would not have communicated the same message. It's not always desirable to strip away emotional content.
  - Diederich 12y ago
    I agree with that. "It upsets and angers me that you're continuing to make the same mistakes over and over again." vs. 'abortion', etc. Both examples communicate emotional content. Only one of them is verbal abuse.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      The old writers' saw runs "Show, don't tell". It speaks to effective communication. It applies here. Consider which is more effective in person - the phrase "I am angry" uttered in a calm tone of voice or profanity and insults in an angry tone of voice. One of those states anger. The other communicates anger.
      - Diederich 12y ago
        Kalium, you bring up the strongest point in favor of defending and using verbally abusive language. I've been through military basic training, and such language is routinely used because it is quite effective at communicating error by breaking down mental resistance and barriers to correction. In that case, the potential for emotional harm is outweighed by the net reduction in the probability for physical harm on the battlefield if such lessons aren't learned absolutely. Make no mistake: the kind of language Linus (and so many others in our community) uses can and does cause emotional harm, primarily to people who might be called 'thin skinned'. This is discriminatory against some personality types. In the balance between using verbally abusive language to more effectively communicate error and not doing that, I believe there's no question: verbal abuse is wrong, and should be avoided, and not defended. There are other ways to accomplish the same thing, without all of the toxic side effects.
        Kalium 12y ago
        I agree, there are other methods to accomplish the same thing without the toxic side effects. That is not in question. The question is if those methods produce superior outcomes, as a lack of the side effects in question does not by itself represent a superior outcome. Remember, the goal of an open source project is useful code. A friendly and emotionally supportive community is only desirable if it aids in achieving that goal.